wow, this has been 2 years ago that the question was asked of which art you can go live with. I'm thinking that you can go live with either art however the end result remains the same. Joints will be torn bones may break and no doubt the uke will get hurt. Either art will damage uke if they resist with all their might, that is if tori knows what they are doing.

I like the find something and stick with it reply though. I'm guilty of starting something and then moving on to something else, but I never forgot my roots in Aikido, therefore I came back and put what I've learned from the other arts to help with my Aikido skills.

I find it interesting that everyone that never studied with Ueshiba Sensei has a different story about what he did as Aikido. It makes me wonder where they got their information.

One of my good friends was Fumio Toyoda, who was one of Tohei's deshis, and my training partner is a student of Sogunuma Sensei, who was one of Ueshiba's ukes and travelled with him. Both of them taught me aikido, but from two completely different perspectives in many respects when teaching the same technique. My partner, however, tells me "I'm imitating Sogunuma Sensei imitating Ueshiba Sensei" quite often during our training.

Before his death, Toyoda Sensei and I did a lot of training together after his seminars on "jujitsu techniques", and he never referred to them as "aiki-jujitsu, or aiki" techniques. He called them "the old style" of technique, which was excellent jujitsu and aikido, but more brutal in its applications. Not much of it was found in the "formal training" in our Aikido seminars, but clearly he knew what the basis of the art was, and had a clear and distinct separation of it from Aikido.

Coming from a jujitsu, judo, and Okinawan karate background, I see a lot of dissimilar approaches to techniques in Aikido, depending on how actually "close" to the sources of Aikido arts the instructors are. While we have a general understanding of what OSensi was trying to get across, I'm not sure that it ever got transmitted to the general population of practitioners. We are all simply "imitating our instruction", and the depth of understanding varies with where we get our information.

While your statement is historically correct regarding where OSensei got his training in jujitsu, there were a lot of other influences that went into the development of Aikido. Exactly what they were and how much each one of them influenced him in developing his art is pure conjecture.

I'd rather tell someone "I'm imitating my teachers imitating their teachers" than to make definitive statements about exactly where any of these arts come from. While I'm a student of martial arts history, I don't think any of us has all the answers or the historical perspective to look inside these old master's minds.

I'm just glad they did what they did, and left us such terrific arts to study and play while learning to defend ourselves. I think the definitive answer is that there is no definitive answer to most of the questions regarding development. The arts are what they are, and what was inside Ueshiba's or Funakoshi's (or any other master's) heads is entirely conjecture, even if you read their writings.

_________________________
What man is a man that does not make the world a better place?... from "Kingdom of Heaven"

Thank you wrist for your insight. I'll admit it was some assumption on my part with the fact that he trained Daito Ryu under Takeda Sokaku. I know he trained in other arts as well, but thought Aikido was more heavily influenced from Daito Ryu. My apologies.

Walter, I sometimes am amazed myself when I see the list of people I've been fortunate enough to train with over the years. I've been lucky enough to be in the right place and at the right time to meet, train with, and make friends with many world reknown martial arts masters. 43 years is a long time to do anything, and I've been around American martial arts since 1962. I started training in judo and Isshin Ryu karate at a YMCA class, and travelled all over North and South Carolina for many years teaching. I started studying jujitsu on my own from books, and then started looking for teachers who "might know some jujitsu". Guys like Toyoda are out there, but you have to make friends with them to find out that they know some things like "the old style of technique".

I've learned to talk to master-level teachers and find out what they're interested in, and what their backgrounds are. A lot of jujitsu teachers started teaching Aikido after it surged into prominence and the public started asking for instruction, so the backgrounds are hidden in the "fluff" to get the students in the door.

Personally, I don't see a difference in Aikido or Aiki-jujitsu other than the preferences of the teachers and what they focus their teachings on. I've been told a thousand times "we don't block in Aikido", but if you don't block, you get hit... now "redirecting" the attacker's attack is not blocking? I don't think so... it's one of those "you say tomato, I say to-mah-to" things.

To me, technique is technique, and the same principles apply if I'm dodging a karate punch, a jujitsu punch, or an aikido punch. How I respond, is dependent on how sincere I think the attack is...

You have to love what you're doing if you're sincere in martial arts training, and I once trained for nearly a year with a broken hip (didn't know it was cracked). What that made me realize is that as long as I do my ukemi correctly, I can protect myself against most Aikido throwing techniques. Some of the other "stuff" is a little more difficult, but I couldn't split the hairs between aikido and aiki-jujitsu if I was using it in a life and death situation. I'd use "technique"... if it came out of a cracker jack box.

_________________________
What man is a man that does not make the world a better place?... from "Kingdom of Heaven"

In case you forgot to read the thread before you posted, Wristtwister said:

Quote:Sorry guys, but technique is technique... how well you do it is what makes the difference. I do both jujitsu and aikido at a high level, and it's all about application not which book the technique came from.

I can do either jujitsu in a big room or aikido in a small room, because you have to adjust the technique to the situation in either case, so what you guys are arguing over is which flea owns the dog.

In other words, It's not the art, it's the artist and the quality of the artist's training that really matter.No art is better than an other by its self. Therefore [just FYI] we really don't like to get in these "what art is better" conversations on this forum.

"It's the artist, not the art" is THE biggest cliche in martial arts--and untrue on top of it. This statement does not come from an honest assessment of the relative strengths and weaknesses of different arts. It is a political statement designed to keep peace within the MA community.

News flash: the art matters--A LOT. If I want to learn practical self-defense, I am going to look into boxing, judo, mma or some other style where they regularly train against actively resisitng opponents under realistic conditions. I am not going to take up WTF taekwondo--it is a martial sport, not self-defense. I am not going to take up aikido--no active resistance.

Please, please--most of us on this board have enough experience to KNOW not all arts are created equal. Let's stop lying to ourselves.

There may be a smidgen of truth to that... but it's only a tiny smidgen. All martial arts are based on the same fundamental principles of combat. Each art tends to specialize in specific ways which the Founders believed to be strategically and/or tactically superior. Therefore, the training method will reflect the philosophy that best addresses those strategic and tactical advantages.

In addition, the training regime that a casual onlooker might observe may not be representative of the art's true meaning and function. Sometimes, things are hidden in plain sight, or just plain hidden - a necessary modification to retain a strategic/tactical superiority or advantage. After all, one never knows if one's enemies have infiltrated one's school to "steal" techniques.

Whilst I agree that each art has its relative strengths and weaknesses (but not in the way you're implying), I think that political statements, cliches, and surface level assessments of an art based on a casual onlooker's perspective is a narrow-minded perception.

It is the student of the art first and foremost, followed by the teacher. If you are a lousy student, it doesn't matter if you have the greatest teacher in the world, of the greatest, most powerful martial art in the world - you will still suck.

What art, is largely irrelevant. One can even learn basic combat principles from sport TKD. If after 15 years, you weren't smart enough to work out the SD aspects inherent in sport TKD (and indeed in all martial arts), then it's hardly the fault of the teacher or the art is it?

I certainly agree that a lousy student will fail to progress in any art. That seems so self-evident it hardly merits stating.

However, I have to take issue with your statement that what art one practices is "largely irrelevant." I wish it were true. But it isn't.

I have studied TKD for 25 years. For about 15 years I was certain TKD would meet any and all of my self-defense needs. I used the "it's the artist, not the art" argument a billion times myself. But somehwere in the back of my mind, I had doubts. When my brother starting boxing, I could not help notice the superiority of his footwork and hand techniques. But I could not admit the gaps in my art.

Finally, I began stdying judo ten years ago and I was able to admit what, at some primal screasm level, I had known for years: TKD is an incomplete art. Strong kicking skills are fine to have; however, they are nowhere near as basic to self defense as good boxing and wrestling skills. From a self-defense perspective, TKD is simply lacking.

Do I hate TKD? Not at all. But as much as I love it, I now see it more as an artistic pursuit.